This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

That's wrong, you have to include everybody in the definition of Muslims including the radicals and then take the average of that. That will be your definition of how violent is the average Muslim. You cannot just say anybody who is peaceful counts and anybody who is violent doesn't count, that's picking and choosing. You have to look at the per capita violence of Islam.

You are obviously very confused. I did not say "If you cannot demonstrate that violent Muslims are, in fact, Muslims," I said, "If you cannot demonstrate that violent Muslims are not, in fact, far beyond the norm." In other words, my argument is that the vast, vast majority of Muslims are peaceful, ergo peaceful Muslims are the norm, and violent Muslims are therefore radicals.

Originally Posted by Opteron

Also, look at the response to the printing of the Danish cartoons. There were massive protests around the Muslim world, many of them burning effigies of the writer. These people seemed to be mainstream Muslim, and look at their intolerance.

Well, to begin with, I hardly thing that the "massive" protests account for a significant percentage of the Muslim population worldwide, but even if this were so, they protested. What's wrong with protesting?

It is not the entire Muslim population that want's to build this mosque. It is one group, fronted by a man that advocates Shria compliance in American law. Why aren't we allowed to see whom is funding this?

You are obviously very confused. I did not say "If you cannot demonstrate that violent Muslims are, in fact, Muslims," I said, "If you cannot demonstrate that violent Muslims are not, in fact, far beyond the norm." In other words, my argument is that the vast, vast majority of Muslims are peaceful, ergo peaceful Muslims are the norm, and violent Muslims are therefore radicals.

No, you are the one who is confused. You are neglecting this part in the point you are trying to make that you have to consider everybody who is part of Islam and not just exclude the radicals. Anybody can say 'the majority were peaceful', that in fact goes for every religion, probably even Christianity, because the majority of peasant farmers were peaceful. Saying that is just a way of escaping accountability for the effects of the religion, because you can't just say the majority are peaceful and exclude anyone who is violent.

Originally Posted by TacticalEvilDan

Well, to begin with, I hardly thing that the "massive" protests account for a significant percentage of the Muslim population worldwide, but even if this were so, they protested. What's wrong with protesting?

It they were peaceful protests, it wouldn't be less of a problem, but its the manner in which they were protesting, where they burned effigies and burned the Danish flag. Anyways, it shows general intolerance of any kind of criticism.

We have an Imam that has proclaimed that he would advocate for a more Shria compliant US.
He will not renounce Hamas as a terror org.
And he will not say who is behind the funding of the project he is fronting.

I think we should know who is behind this.

j-mac

Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.
Alexis de Tocqueville

What YOU think is irrelelveant. If I think I should see all your financial records simnply because I don't like how you talk or that you refuse to say something (For example the GOP are wanting to ruin America), are you going to provide them to me? Of course not, so why would you expect a PRIVATELY funded Mosque to provde YOU or the public with their records?

What YOU think is irrelelveant. If I think I should see all your financial records simnply because I don't like how you talk or that you refuse to say something (For example the GOP are wanting to ruin America), are you going to provide them to me? Of course not, so why would you expect a PRIVATELY funded Mosque to provde YOU or the public with their records?

Not even close to the same thing here. They want to destroy the Burlington Coat Factory building, a landmark building, to build a mosque at Ground Zero, and I think that they should tell us who is behind it. Why wouldn't they if there is nothing to hide?

j-mac

Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.
Alexis de Tocqueville

We have an Imam that has proclaimed that he would advocate for a more Shria compliant US.

So what? The only way he could even come close would be via contract law. The First Amendment, which I can't imagine would ever be repealed or modified to his tastes, outlaws virtually any other approach.

Originally Posted by j-mac

He will not renounce Hamas as a terror org.

So what?

Originally Posted by j-mac

And he will not say who is behind the funding of the project he is fronting.

Nobody's business.

Originally Posted by j-mac

I think we should know who is behind this.

I think, unless sufficient evidence is uncovered that the law is being broken or there's a conspiracy to break it, we have no grounds whatsoever for knowing who is behind it.

Not even close to the same thing here. They want to destroy the Burlington Coat Factory building, a landmark building, to build a mosque at Ground Zero, and I think that they should tell us who is behind it. Why wouldn't they if there is nothing to hide?